You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ripple.apache.org by Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com> on 2015/04/21 07:38:39 UTC
RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2) RE: [Vote] Ripple
release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Hey Brent - can you expand on the lint failures you are seeing?
In 0.9.28 there were lint failures in ripple.css, which I've since fixed. But do they interfere with building? (I built a compressed version of 0.9.28 for the first package I put out, and the version you put up on npm would be the same, right?).
Since 0.9.28, I noticed I introduced some lint failures in build/archive.js. They're not part of 0.9.28 so don't impact this release, but I'll make sure to fix them.
> Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.
You're welcome :), and I can't wait to finally get everything sorted and get this baby out the door!
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:53 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
(pending Ross's comments in the Discuss thread), I've been testing the building and running of the source:
Only thing before I could +1, is that, it appears there is some js/css lint that fails the `jake deploy` step.
Sorry for delays- been super busy. :-(
Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.
Also- To add onto what Tim said to Tim (Windsor), indeed, the Chrome store extension is no longer maintained. We (a few of the original committers) asked for credentials a long time ago from BlackBerry (WebWorks team), but have not been able to get them and update/remove it. PS: Thanks for the docs updates, Tim!
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 05:29 Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am very sorry for being late to the party!
>
> Tim, could you let me know where I can find the signature keys?
>
> I couldn't find BD12A00B3D7CC134. Usually we have it in some KEYS file
> somewhere and should document for users how they can verify the release.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 15:07, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.28.
> >
> >
> > Changes since the previous vote thread: this is a new package that
> > contains all source material (everything in the git repo), and no
> > build output.
> >
> >
> > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > http://1drv.ms/1BAKsBJ. It was published from its corresponding git tag:
> > incubator-ripple: 0.9.28 (1d95fed542)
> >
> >
> > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (our
> > first!), we must be particularly careful that it complies with all
> > Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such, before voting
> > +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the checklist at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> >
> >
> > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements,
> > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make
> > changes if necessary.
> >
> >
> > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in
> > order to be confident in the release.
> >
> >
> > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> >
> >
> > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means
> > > three
> IPMC
> > > members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> > > management
> committee
> > > members. However, as a mentor (therefore having a binding vote) I
> > > look
> to the
> > > project participants to indicate their preference and (assuming no
> blocking
> > > issues on an IP check) I'll always vote in support of the
> > > communities
> non-
> > > binding votes.
> >
> >
> > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time
> > to review the release and vote!
> >
> >
> > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be
> > uploaded to dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> >
> >
> > I vote +1:
> > * I verified build works and tests all pass
> > * I ran Apache RAT against the repo and confirmed we were ok with
> > all files reported by RAT (which I'll be adding to RAT exceptions
> > when I add tools to run RAT automatically).
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2) RE: [Vote] Ripple
release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
Hey Tim,
>> can you expand on the lint failures you are seeing?
Sure thing! Here is a gist of what I see in master and the 0.9.28 build I
got:
https://gist.github.com/brentlintner/4a34862a600f36f66881
Ah, looks like the csslint commit was post-0.9.28:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/commit/d796adb85bacdde09b0f09123510d594236f71df
And no worries. I just submitted a PR (since I was in the source anyways)
or the fixes: :-)
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/pull/50
>> But do they interfere with building?
Technically, (as of now), if you want to run 'jake deploy' which compresses
files, then yes, but `jake build` and other tasks that just use the build
module do not, so I suppose it is not truly interfering.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 at 02:01 Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hey Brent - can you expand on the lint failures you are seeing?
>
> In 0.9.28 there were lint failures in ripple.css, which I've since fixed.
> But do they interfere with building? (I built a compressed version of
> 0.9.28 for the first package I put out, and the version you put up on npm
> would be the same, right?).
>
> Since 0.9.28, I noticed I introduced some lint failures in
> build/archive.js. They're not part of 0.9.28 so don't impact this release,
> but I'll make sure to fix them.
>
> > Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.
>
> You're welcome :), and I can't wait to finally get everything sorted and
> get this baby out the door!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:53 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
>
> (pending Ross's comments in the Discuss thread), I've been testing the
> building and running of the source:
>
> Only thing before I could +1, is that, it appears there is some js/css
> lint that fails the `jake deploy` step.
>
> Sorry for delays- been super busy. :-(
>
> Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.
>
> Also- To add onto what Tim said to Tim (Windsor), indeed, the Chrome store
> extension is no longer maintained. We (a few of the original committers)
> asked for credentials a long time ago from BlackBerry (WebWorks team), but
> have not been able to get them and update/remove it. PS: Thanks for the
> docs updates, Tim!
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 05:29 Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I am very sorry for being late to the party!
> >
> > Tim, could you let me know where I can find the signature keys?
> >
> > I couldn't find BD12A00B3D7CC134. Usually we have it in some KEYS file
> > somewhere and should document for users how they can verify the release.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 15:07, Tim Barham wrote:
> > > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.28.
> > >
> > >
> > > Changes since the previous vote thread: this is a new package that
> > > contains all source material (everything in the git repo), and no
> > > build output.
> > >
> > >
> > > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > > http://1drv.ms/1BAKsBJ. It was published from its corresponding git
> tag:
> > > incubator-ripple: 0.9.28 (1d95fed542)
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (our
> > > first!), we must be particularly careful that it complies with all
> > > Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such, before voting
> > > +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the checklist at
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements,
> > > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make
> > > changes if necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in
> > > order to be confident in the release.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> > >
> > >
> > > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means
> > > > three
> > IPMC
> > > > members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> > > > management
> > committee
> > > > members. However, as a mentor (therefore having a binding vote) I
> > > > look
> > to the
> > > > project participants to indicate their preference and (assuming no
> > blocking
> > > > issues on an IP check) I'll always vote in support of the
> > > > communities
> > non-
> > > > binding votes.
> > >
> > >
> > > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time
> > > to review the release and vote!
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be
> > > uploaded to dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> > >
> > >
> > > I vote +1:
> > > * I verified build works and tests all pass
> > > * I ran Apache RAT against the repo and confirmed we were ok with
> > > all files reported by RAT (which I'll be adding to RAT exceptions
> > > when I add tools to run RAT automatically).
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> >
>